The bigger censorship offender- Private Sector or Government?

[dblack]

Again, if we are speaking about society and general information exchange, the term "censorship" would best be reserved for something the government (or similar) does by forbidding and/or blocking information. Of course, we could call other kinds of information control "censorship", such as parents monitoring a child's reading, etc. If this is the way the o.p. wishes to use the term, obviously the government is not the most active.

Yes. The whole thread rests on that equivocation. It's not intended for an honest discussion.

 

[EMH]

It is not about private vs public.

The same demographics behind the steal are behind the censorship...

Homos
Black democrats
Zioideology, that theideology

You're bigot

You're bigot


Lol


Newsflash - Mossad are still bad at ENGLISH

 

[Dragonlady]

The private sector censors more speech.

Excellent! Your reply demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post. The rest of what you posted was meant to defend censorship.

There is no law that prevents the private sector from censoring anyone or anything.

That said you can still say or write anything you want with no censorship whatsoever as long as you provide the means to write or say it so it doesn't matter if a private sector entity censors you on their platforms.

Ten points if you can quote from the opening post what this thread is about. There is a clue in the second paragraph of it.

It has already been established that the private sector censors more than the government because the government is prohibited by law where the private sector isn't.

And it doesn't matter if the private sector censors people on their platforms because that have the right to do so.

BUT you cannot be stopped by any private entity from saying or writing whatever you want so for all intents and purposes no private sector entity can censor you unless you agree to the terms of use of their platforms.

You are not guaranteed an audience for your speech.

Nor are you guaranteed that you posts are not going to be censored on these platforms.

Leftists were outraged when FaceBook censored photographs of women's breast cancer scars. It's not like it doesn't happen.

When your posts are fact based, they're generally not removed. What was being removed were dangerous lies about covid, and the election. Along with baseless smears of politicians, complete with discredited forged evidence provided by Russian intelligence.

Donald Trump and the Republicans are basically demanding the right to lie with impunity and poison American political discourse with baseless allegations, in an effort to destabilize democracy. They have yet to prove a single allegation regarding the election, and after 4 years of investigations, there is a similar dearth of evidence in their investigations of the Obama Administration, the Clintons, and the Bidens. Not a single charge has been filed, no one has been arrested, and no one convicted. Meanwhile Trump pardoned all of his buddies and former staffers on his way out the door.

How many people have to die as a result of Trump's lying, before he is required to tell the American people the truth? Truth and facts aren't a lot to ask.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is not about private vs public.

The same demographics behind the steal are behind the censorship...

Homos
Black democrats
Zionist jews

So in reality those behind the "Big Squeal" also back the phony Censorship Wailing?

Trumpybears' Banana Republicans?

 

[EvMetro]

Censorship is censorship, regardless of if the government does it, or if the private sector does it. Our freedom of speech rights are supposed to protect us from government censorship, but the private sector is allowed to censor. On that note, who censors more speech?

For those who will be derailing this thread, here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector? This is what the thread is about.

The government cannot censor the people because of the First Amendment. Not only can government not fire you for criticizing. They can't force your employer to fire you either. But business is not bound by the First Amendment, so if I don't like your politics, I can indeed fire you with impunity. The government cannot do that.

But that is exactly what Donald Trump did to Andrew McCabe, and then he attempted to prosecute him to boot. The Grand Jury could find no evidence that McCabe committed any crimes, because as Deputy Director, McCabe was the FBI Press liaison and it was his JOB to talk to the press, when Barr attempted to charge McCabe with talking to the press without authorization. This was something the IG mentioned in his report, and Barr seized on it.

There were many more government workers he forced out of government, especially in the State Department, because as a trained diplomat and member of the foreign service, she was unlikely to participate in the sort of shennanigans that Guiliani and Trump bid donor volunteers were getting up to, expecially when it came to planting evidence, and bullying foreign governments. Like Maria Yovanovich, and Colonel Vindeman. That was a violation of their rights.

Check out the second paragraph of my opening post

 

[dblack]

For those who will be derailing this thread, here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector? This is what the thread is about.

Nominally, the government isn't supposed to censor at all. So, things would be really bad if the government censored more than the private sector, don't you agree?

 

[EvMetro]

For those who will be derailing this thread, here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector? This is what the thread is about.

Nominally, the government isn't supposed to censor at all. So, things would be really bad if the government censored more than the private sector, don't you agree?

Yes

 

[EvMetro]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

 

[dblack]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

 

[EvMetro]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

 

[dblack]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

So, you won't answer the question?

Alright. Let's talk about what YOU want to talk about. I'm not a lefty, but here's my view: There's nothing innately right or wrong about censorship. As long as it's not coercive, it's a legitimate way for society to self-moderate. Whether you think a given act of censorship is good or bad is entirely subjective. It depends on whether you share the values and sensibilities of those doing the censoring, or not.

 

[EvMetro]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

So, you won't answer the question?

Alright. Let's talk about what YOU want to talk about. I'm not a lefty, but here's my view: There's nothing innately right or wrong about censorship. As long as it's not coercive, it's a legitimate way for society to self-moderate. Whether you think a given act of censorship is good or bad is entirely subjective. It depends on whether you share the values and sensibilities of those doing the censoring, or not.

We are in fact discussing censorship on a political site, which means the default type of censorship that we are discussing is obviously in regard to the political landscape. What politically motivated censorship is not coercive?

 

[Blues Man]

The private sector censors more speech.

Excellent! Your reply demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post. The rest of what you posted was meant to defend censorship.

There is no law that prevents the private sector from censoring anyone or anything.

That said you can still say or write anything you want with no censorship whatsoever as long as you provide the means to write or say it so it doesn't matter if a private sector entity censors you on their platforms.

Ten points if you can quote from the opening post what this thread is about. There is a clue in the second paragraph of it.

It has already been established that the private sector censors more than the government because the government is prohibited by law where the private sector isn't.

And it doesn't matter if the private sector censors people on their platforms because that have the right to do so.

BUT you cannot be stopped by any private entity from saying or writing whatever you want so for all intents and purposes no private sector entity can censor you unless you agree to the terms of use of their platforms.

You are not guaranteed an audience for your speech.

Nor are you guaranteed that you posts are not going to be censored on these platforms.

Leftists were outraged when FaceBook censored photographs of women's breast cancer scars. It's not like it doesn't happen.

When your posts are fact based, they're generally not removed. What was being removed were dangerous lies about covid, and the election. Along with baseless smears of politicians, complete with discredited forged evidence provided by Russian intelligence.

Donald Trump and the Republicans are basically demanding the right to lie with impunity and poison American political discourse with baseless allegations, in an effort to destabilize democracy. They have yet to prove a single allegation regarding the election, and after 4 years of investigations, there is a similar dearth of evidence in their investigations of the Obama Administration, the Clintons, and the Bidens. Not a single charge has been filed, no one has been arrested, and no one convicted. Meanwhile Trump pardoned all of his buddies and former staffers on his way out the door.

How many people have to die as a result of Trump's lying, before he is required to tell the American people the truth? Truth and facts aren't a lot to ask.

It's not always about Trump.

 

[Blues Man]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

 

[dblack]

What politically motivated censorship is not coercive?

Before we start the traditional equivocation on the term "coercive", let me clarify. By coercive, I mean compelled by law - ie censorship imposed by the state. No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

 

[SC Patriot]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

it is wrong to do it because it gives contributors and readers reason to believe there is only one thought on any given topic and that's not good for society.

It is the same as indoctrination.

But hey, its legal.

I just don't use them anymore.

 

[EvMetro]

What politically motivated censorship is not coercive?

Before we start the traditional equivocation on the term "coercive", let me clarify. By coercive, I mean compelled by law - ie censorship imposed by the state. No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

I pulled up a definition of coerce:

co•erce kō-ûrs′
►

• transitive verb
  To pressure, intimidate, or force (someone) into doing something. synonym: force.
• transitive verb
  To bring about or gain by pressure, threat, or force.
• 
  To restrain or constrain by force, as by the force of law or authority; especially, compel to compliance; constrain to obedience or submission in a vigorous or forcible manner.

 

[EvMetro]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

 

[dblack]

What politically motivated censorship is not coercive?

Before we start the traditional equivocation on the term "coercive", let me clarify. By coercive, I mean compelled by law - ie censorship imposed by the state. No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

I pulled up a definition of coerce ...

And dutifully ignored my post.

 

[dblack]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

I don't want to get in the way of you beating up on "lefties", but this makes no sense. Asking whether censorship is right or wrong is like asking if criticism is right or wrong.